DOE "S.A.T." v. WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-11511
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JANE DOE “S.A.T.,” Civil Action No. 24-11511 (SDW) (JBC)

Plaintiff,

WHEREAS OPINION & ORDER v.

WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, September 23, 2025 INC., RAMADA FRANCHISE SYSTEM, INC., GLOBAL HOSPITALITY, L.P., PRAMUKHRAJ IRVING LLC,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Defendant Global Hospitality, L.P.’s (“Global Hospitality” or “Defendant”) Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment entered against it on September 4, 2025, (D.E. 37 (“Motion”)); and WHEREAS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 55(c) provides that “[t]he court may set aside an entry of default for good cause.” In deciding a motion to vacate a default judgment, “a standard of ‘liberality,’ rather than ‘strictness’ should be applied in acting on a motion to set aside a default judgment, and that ‘[a]ny doubt should be resolved in favor of the petition to set aside the judgment so that cases may be decided on their merits.’” Medunic v. Lederer, 533 F.2d 891, 893–94 (3d Cir. 1976) (alteration in original) (quoting Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 189 F.2d 242, 245–46 (3d Cir. 1951)); and WHEREAS in its response to Defendant’s Motion Plaintiff acknowledges she made an inadvertent filing error and does not oppose Global Hospitality’s Motion. (D.E. 38 at 2); WHEREAS both parties request that the case proceed on the merits; therefore Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment is GRANTED. SO ORDERED.

___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____ SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

Orig: Clerk cc: Parties James B. Clark, U.S.M.J.